District seeks authority to "quick take" BB Land

[bob]

First of all, we have no official top end valuations from BB so there is no reason to use the $600K figure. The $600k was a complete bullshit number meant to scare the people.


This is all negotiations ploys.

Someone please show me any land in the SD that exchanged at $600k an acre in the last year.

[204parent]

blankcheck said:

So basically the district is looking at spending anywhere from 14,135,000 (257,000/acre) to 33,000,000 (600,000/acre) - whatever the jury decides. That cold ultimatly cost the district and additional 18,865,000 dollars just for the land. Now you tell me Bob where is that additional money going to come from? Again, now that they have decided to proceed with this "quick take" agreement, we as a district, are OBLIGATED to pay that additional cost. Is this property really worth taking that risk?

The probability of the land costing $600k per acre is significantly less than the probability of getting into an automobile accident on Rt. 59. Do you drive on Rt. 59?

[bob]

I have been looking at land prices.


Prime Commercial Real Estate

5 acres on Commons drive is listed at $286k an acre, near the mall

1.378 acres near the mall 289K an acre.


Also think about this: $600,000/acre, zoned high density, how many town homes per acre and at what construction cost will a developer need to biuld just to recover costs.

The probability of the land costing $600k per acre is significantly less than the probability of getting into an automobile accident on Rt. 59. Do you drive on Rt. 59?

I think the number of accidents to the number of cars on RT 59 per day is a pretty small %.

[proschool]

204parent said:

blankcheck said:

So basically the district is looking at spending anywhere from 14,135,000 (257,000/acre) to 33,000,000 (600,000/acre) - whatever the jury decides. That cold ultimatly cost the district and additional 18,865,000 dollars just for the land. Now you tell me Bob where is that additional money going to come from? Again, now that they have decided to proceed with this "quick take" agreement, we as a district, are OBLIGATED to pay that additional cost. Is this property really worth taking that risk?

The probability of the land costing $600k per acre is significantly less than the probability of getting into an automobile accident on Rt. 59. Do you drive on Rt. 59?

The city of Aurora wants the traffic on Route 59 and has been intrumental in directing student traffic onto route 59. Student traffic on Route 59 can almost totally be avoided by allowing the student parking on Common's Drive instead of 1/4 mile to the east. If you are afraid of the prospect of kids driving on Route 59 you should call your alderman.

[blankcheck]

All I am saying is that where is this additional money going to come from if the jury decides that the value of the land is higher than 257,000/acre? Are they going to lump that additional sum onto the 2009 referendum?

You guys make it sound like no big deal - IT IS A BIG DEAL!

[204parent]

proschool said:

204parent said:

The probability of the land costing $600k per acre is significantly less than the probability of getting into an automobile accident on Rt. 59. Do you drive on Rt. 59?

The city of Aurora wants the traffic on Route 59 and has been intrumental in directing student traffic onto route 59. Student traffic on Route 59 can almost totally be avoided by allowing the student parking on Common's Drive instead of 1/4 mile to the east. If you are afraid of the prospect of kids driving on Route 59 you should call your alderman.

Sorry, my analogy was poorly written. I'm not at all concerned about the traffic on Rt 59. The probability of an accident is very low. I was trying to say that the probability of the land costing $600k is even less!

At some point everybody needs to take a little risk.

[bob]

blankcheck said:

All I am saying is that where is this additional money going to come from if the jury decides that the value of the land is higher than 257,000/acre? Are they going to lump that additional sum onto the 2009 referendum?

You guys make it sound like no big deal - IT IS A BIG DEAL!

It is not a big deal until it happens.

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

blankcheck said:

All I am saying is that where is this additional money going to come from if the jury decides that the value of the land is higher than 257,000/acre? Are they going to lump that additional sum onto the 2009 referendum?

You guys make it sound like no big deal - IT IS A BIG DEAL!

It is not a big deal until it happens.

But IMHO....given this SB/Admin track record...there is a strong likelyhood that they will be paying more than the 257k....My concern is how much more?

[EagleDad]

It is undoubtable that they will be paying more than 257k, and I believe that has some more factored in. However, we can all agree 600k is scandalous.

This is standard positioning, let's give it a chance to work out and not bail on the whole ball of wax at the first sign of negotiation. No one thought for a moment BB would just walk away from the land, did you?

[chicoryowl]

eagledad said:

It is undoubtable that they will be paying more than 257k, and I believe that has some more factored in. However, we can all agree 600k is scandalous.

This is standard positioning, let's give it a chance to work out and not bail on the whole ball of wax at the first sign of negotiation. No one thought for a moment BB would just walk away from the land, did you?

I went to an informational session during the referendum process and they confirmed that they had more set aside than just the offer. However, they weren't about to disclose it at all because that would then set the price. (Perhaps they didn't tell CV what their upper limit is then.)

Think about basic negotiating and budgeting. There is little chance that the district would have done all of their budgeting under the assumption the land would be purchased at exactly their asking price. Do you walk into a car dealership and make your absolute best offer?

[wvhsparent]

OK...now that we all understand. I feel a poll coming on......

What is your upper limit that you would be comfortable with?

I am not really comfortable with 257k, but my upper limit would be 275k.

[proschool]

Dist. 204 sends quick-take to capital
By Sara Hooker
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Tuesday, September 12, 2006



Indian Prairie leaders moved the decision to quick-take the land for a third high school to lawmakers in Springfield following a public hearing Monday evening.

Unit District 204 officials need an additional 55 acres of the Brach-Brodie property, located off Route 59 near 75th Street and Commons Drive, to build the proposed $124.7 million school. Taxpayers in portions of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield approved the funds in March.

Should the general assembly approve, the district would get immediate access to the land rather than wait for the conclusion of what could be a lengthy court procedure to acquire it through the condemnation suit it filed in December.

In a 6-to-1 vote, board members said they’d like the option, even if they choose not to use it. Board member Christine Vickers voted against the measure.

Accepting quick-take powers locks the district into whatever price the jury determines the land to be worth, attorneys announced Monday evening.

The land was owned by the late Brach brothers of Brach Candy fame and passed on to their wives Helen Vorhees Brach and Hazel S. (Brach) Brodie, who are also deceased.

Brodie Attorney Steve Helm called the issue of quick-take “a very extraordinary process” that is usually reserved for the Illinois Department of Transportation to expedite land issues that involve public safety.

“It’s generally not used for school districts,” Helm said.

Attorneys for both of the land’s trusts told board members they believe it is worth at least twice as much as the district’s $257,500 per acre offer.

Board member Bruce Glawe said he found it “incomprehensible” that the cost of the land could have gone up so drastically from earlier estimates the district based its offer on.

“It’s absurd,” Glawe said.

Regardless of whether the district obtains quick-take power, a jury will decide the cost of the land. Currently, the district would be able to reject a price that puts the land higher than budgeted. Should the district accept quick-take powers, they must pay whatever a jury determines.

Shortly after District 204 filed the condemnation suit, the Brodie attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the suit saying the district didn’t bargain in good faith. A judge will rule on the motion in October. Should the case be dismissed, district officials have said they would re-file the condemnation request.

The quick-take plan goes to Springfield for consideration during the November veto session.

“The largest advantage we have (with quick-take powers) is that the construction schedule will not be delayed,” said District 204 Attorney Rick Petesch with Whitt Law. “We can avoid the situation of having to buy portable (classrooms) or just overcrowd the classrooms.”

[Avenging Eagle]

If this is a "Quick Take", I would hate to see the long version!

[blankcheck]

Yes Bob, not a big deal UNTIL YOU ARE LOCKED INTO PAYING THE HIGHER PRICE! Also did you note that "QUICK TAKE" is usually used for transportion or say the city of Chicago for the Ohare expansion - not usually school districts.

[204parent]

I'm proud to live in a district that has the kahunas to do what it takes to get the job done!!!